— Prof. James E. Packer, [– review of–], “The Atlante: Roma antica revealed,” (2013): “…Such difficulties indicate that the reconstruction of any given monument is complicated indeed. Any authoritative treatment should present all the evidence for the site: a measured archaeological plan, drawings of its existing state, a catalogue with photographs and scaled drawings of the architectural elements, full citations of all ancient and modern bibliography, detailed measured reconstructions and perhaps even one or more restored views. And since Roman buildings had columns of colored marble and granite, fine marble veneers and painted architectural elements, the restorations should be colored (as are the illustrations here in vol. I). Such presentations manifestly go far beyond what was possible for the authors of the Atlante” (…) “And digital reproduction would immeasurably improve the Atlante’s maps and plans. As published, they are too small to be read easily (even with a magnifying glass), and there is frequently too much information on a single drawing. If the same materials were available online, they could be magnified on-screen so as to clarify all the details, and the maps could be configured (as in Adobe Photoshop) to turn on and off different chronological layers so as to illustrate the details of each period without the distracting presence of earlier or later elements. Without the enormous expense involved in producing modern printed publications, a visitor could, for each monument, access all the relevant images in black, white, and as many colors as necessary. Yet a digital collection of that kind would still be only a first step. With the close collaboration of the participating scholars, the programmers for the digital site could create colored, 3-D architectural models to serve as visual indices for the scholarship the buildings represent; a click on any of the constituent elements could bring up all the known verbal and visual information it represents.”

— “…There is an increasingly positive attitude in Rome towards the careful conservation and display of building stratification, as highlighted by the Crypta Balbi Museum [including the later Museum of the Imperial Forums] which can be extended to many other historic buildings across the world. There is also a vast amount of information from archaeological and measured surveys for almost every significant historic building, and it becomes important to collate, analyse and interpret these data towards not only scholarly publications, but also to inform conservation projects that respect the history of the fabric by offering a clear understanding of the actions and technologies of many generations.”

— “An archaeological site survey allows for the detection of stratigraphic relationships, locations of archaeological finds, materials, building and manufacturing techniques and it is an essential stage in the understanding and interpreting of evolutional phases, in space and time. The analysis of the architectural history of an archaeological site cannot be based only on the ‘extrinsic documentation’, derived from iconography and archive-documentary sources. Instead, it should have recourse to the analysis of the preserved architectural text.”

— ‘The study of ancient monuments is still the Cinderella of archaeology: in an archaeological context the value attributed to moveable finds such as statues, mosaics, and vessels, is often considered much more relevant than the remains of a building, which is usually regarded just as a ‘container’ for the exhibits that really matter. Moreover, it is not really clear who should study the buildings: an engineer? Or an architect? Or a particular kind of archaeologist? Of course, cooperation is always welcomed, but the results are valuable only if each specific field of work is well defined, the risk being that only some aspects will be examined, while the overall understanding of the construction will be missed.’